[To ran Salvos or Tar "Brramor.") Sta,—What is the ethical
argument against gambling ? This is the question your correspondent " A.B." asks in your last issue, and he answers it by saying that no one should seek to acquire wealth except in return for services rendered to the community. But he admits that this answer to bis question fails to satisfy the plain man, and you, Sir, say that this answer "clearly will not do." You then lay it down that "it is impossible to formulate any abstract moral rule against betting," that it only becomes harmful when carried to excess, and that excess is reached when the gambler risks more money than he can afford to lose. May I also say that this "clearly will not do "? I only know of one ethical argu- ment against gambling, which I will mention. Gambling cannot be excluded from the vice of covetousness, which is the desire to possess that which belongs to another without giving a due equivalent. Gambling is not dishonest when carried on according to recognized rules, and the absence of dishonesty inclines the gambler to think that it is otherwise free from vice. There is the beet authority for the con- demnation of covetousness, and when covetousness is ruled out gambling and betting go out with it. Why " " anawer to his question fails to satisfy the plain man is that the plain man is not prepared to rule out covetousness.—I am, Sir, dm, E. J. E.
Previous page
